Come on Paul, have a go at answering Loren's question, it is simple
enough, It doesn't need private discussion to clarify the issue. Are
carbon atoms intelligently designed or not?

Jon

> Paul Nelson wrote:
>
> Loren Haarsma wrote:
>
> >According to scripture, God designed and created
> >everything in the universe. That includes carbon
> >atoms. Carbon atoms are, of course, necessary for
> >life.
> >
> >Science provides a great deal of evidence that the
> >carbon atoms in this universe self-assembled from
> >component pieces -- according to natural laws and
> >without the need for miraculous intervention -- in
> >stellar cores and were dispersed throughout the
> >universe by stellar winds and novas.
> >
> >I see absolutely no conflict between those previous
> >two paragraphs. I expect that very few theologians
> >see a conflict.
> >
> >But if I use the definition of "intelligent design"
> >which you, Dembski, and your fellows insist upon using,
> >then there is a huge conflict between those two
> >paragraphs.
> >
> >So please tell me:
> >
> >Are carbon atoms intelligently designed?
> >
> >If they are, then would it _also_ be true that modern
> >living organisms are intelligently designed EVEN IF
> >they self-assembled from component pieces according
> >to natural laws and without the need for miraculous
> >intervention?
>
> I'll be at Calvin College between May 21 and May 27,
> attending two conferences on design and science.
> Why don't we talk about this then? [I have lectures
> to give very soon at Wheaton College and Chicago
> State Univ., and need to prep for them.]
>
> In the interim, my quick reply to your question
> is that you're using at least two senses of "design"
> -- one which you would affirm irrespective of the
> findings of science, and another which you would
> not (i.e., which has risky empirical content). From
> past discussions, I know that you -- unlike Howard
> Van Till -- allow that science *could* discover
> that organisms (for instance) did *not* "self-assemble
> from component pieces according to natural laws."
> The only sense of "design" that Howard recognizes
> is the first.
>
> So before I can answer your question, I need to
> know which sense of "design" is at play. But
> let's save this discussion for next month.
>
> Paul
>
> P.S. Just read Tim Ikeda's post on "proximate"
> and "distal" ID. Please see my article in _Zygon_
> 34 (December 1999):677-682, "Is 'Intelligent
> Design' Unavoidable -- Even By Howard Van
> Till?" where I argued that Van Till's position was
> indeed "distal ID." I made a case in the
> article that's Howard's "functional integrity"
> hypothesis had empirical content, vis-a-vis the
> views (for instance) of Martin Rees. Rees
> argues that our universe is the lucky winner is
> a meta-cosmic lottery: this universe was drawn
> by the blind hand of chance "from an infinite urn
> of other universes which would not sustain life"
> (p. 680).
>
> Turns out I was wrong, however. Howard later
> told me that his position is *not* what Tim
> calls "distal ID," because that would ascribe
> empirical content to Howard's view, when in
> fact it is a faith commitment.
>
> That's it for me in this discussion (on the ASA
> listserve, I mean ;-)
>